Give us new province, say orthodox

Last week Colin Bazley, former primate of the Southern Cone and now an assistant bishop in the Chester diocese, wrote an open letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury calling for the suspension of The Episcopal Church from the Anglican Communion and the creation of a new province for the conservatives. This was in response to the deposition of  Bishop Bob Duncan of Pittsburgh, pictured here, and which we covered last week. This is not going to go away. Even though Dr Rowan Williams is not planning to comment and has instead headed of to Lourdes with several busloads of Anglican pilgrims, hoping no doubt for a miraculous healing for his church, six of his bishops have today put out their own statement of support for Bishop Duncan. And as we report, one of those bishops, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali of Rochester, has in an interview with me today repeated the call for a new province first made by the Gafcon leaders at their conference this summer. I've always held out the hope in my own heart that the split would not come this side of the Atlantic. But I've recently spent a little time with some extremely senior laypeople in the conservative moment. They are not 'names' familiar to the blogosphere. But it seems there can be little doubt. What has happened there will happen here. Expect property battles and more in years to come. Read on for Bishop Michael's interview, and the response from Anglican Mainstream.

It has crossed my mind recently that Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori is secretly one of the "orthodox". That can surely be the only reason that she has created a martyr who is now being venerated by evangelicals worldwide, and who is poised to become the sanctified leader of an orthodox movement that is demanding, and might well get, its own province.

Have we come so far from our Catholic tradition that we have forgotten the power of martyrdom, on which the Western church is built? Does no-one in TEC understand any more the meaning of sacrifice?

Because a martyr is what Bob Duncan now is. The Episcopal Church should not need a heretically catholic Anglican such as me to tell it that the next step up from martyrdom is sainthood. Bishop Duncan's office has been inundated with emails, phonecalls and letters of supportm since the ill-advised deposition.  Since Friday, he has had personal messages from six primates, including ++Anis and ++Chew, indicating their intention not to recognise the deposition and to support the Pittsburgh "remnant". There have been all kinds of other ones as well from various bishops, clergy and laity all over the world. They are being catalogued on a new site, set up specially to venerate the deposed bishop.

And now in England, six bishops are pledging their support and saying they will continue to recognise him. Surely that is momentous enough to warrant an archiepiscopal comment? Or perhaps all pretence of episcopal collegiality has been abandoned.

This is what they say:

'As bishops in the Church of England, we are deeply saddened and shocked by the proposed deposition of Bishop Robert Duncan in the Episcopal Church, USA.  We declare that we continue to believe that Bishop Bob is a bishop in the Church of God and a bishop in good standing in the Anglican Communion.  We continue to pray for him and for his diocese of Pittsburgh.

+Nicholas Blackburn

+Peter Cestr:

+John Cicester:

+Michael Exon:

+Michael Roffen:

+Michael Winton.'

Dr Nazir-Ali kindly enlarged for me. In a telephone interview he said:

'We believe that Bishop Duncan is a bishop in good standing. We hope that our belief is correct.

'The first thing is to express huge admiration for Bishop Bob, because for so many  years he has borne the brunt of the anger of those who want to make changes in The Episcopal Church. He has stayed loyally within that Church.

'I have quite often watched him in the American house of bishops or general convention, taking flak. So given all of that, I am very sad and very shocked that he's been treated in this way.

'Quite a few American bishops had come to Lambeth, knowing that nothing would change afterwards. I do not think we can take seriously what they agreed at Lambeth. This is of a piece with other meetings where they have beehn present, have agreed things and where nothing has happened afterwards.

'This does show that a structural solution is needed for the orthodox in the American church. There must be immediate relief. No talk about panels doing things in the future. We need, they need more importantly, immediate relief from this kind of action taken against them. I hope that a province in due course of the orthodox in America will be recognised in the Anglican Communion.

'Here are loyal Anglicans whose only fault is not wanting to change what they have received.

'We have been hearing for some time that they orthodox want to be recognised in America. I am not saying that there might be a province straight away. There may be steps to recognising the constituency first, in some way, providing for oversight, which is absolutely essential, and recognising Common Cause Partnership and its leaders as Anglicans in good standing.

'But in the end I cannot see how we can avoid recognising some kind of entity of the orthodox in the US. I hope [the split] does not come to Britain. That is something we have been working on, to keep the unity of the Church of England intact.'

The Church of England is doing well right now. We carried a report last Saturday about the latest offering of the rapid response prayer unit, to help us all cope with the credit crunch. And while Dr Williams is seeking succour in Lourdes with the Holy See's Cardinal Walter Kasper no less - he should be able to pick up a few tips from him on church unity - the Archbishop of York Dr John Sentamu is flying off to New York where he will join Bill Clinton and Gordon Brown in promoting action on the Millennium Development Goals.

But a robust statement this evening from Bishop Wallace Benn of Lewes and others at Anglican Mainstream gives some indication of how serious the problems remain on the home front.

They said: 'The Jerusalem statement from almost 1200 confessing Anglican leaders urged the Archbishops of Nigeria, Kenya, Southern Cone, Tanzania, Uganda, West Africa and Rwanda to recognise a new Anglican province for North America.

'This has now become more urgent due to the aggressive liberal and unprincipled behaviour of The Episcopal Church house of bishops towards the Bishop of Pittsburgh whose currently moderator of the orthodox Common Cause Partnership.

'The behaviour of The Episcopal Church house of bishops shows that the promised moratorium at Lambeth is dead and their integrity in wishing to bring peace must now be questioned.'

My own view?

Let's all join in praying for a miracle at Lourdes. My own recent experience of visiting Lourdes this year, however, when I partook of the waters and became extremely sick, doesn't persuade me to hold out much hope at all.

Comments

[j]

unless, Delilah, what you are saying is that evil comes from Satan and that he is doing pretty well.. in which case I think there is a convincing case to be made, but I would like to know why I should worship a being that doesnt provide my child with better protection.

[J Pearce]

Fr Van,

Let me bring this back to topic and highlight a major flaw in your arguments.

Your off-topic premise is that Christianity is not "monolithic". The implication of this is that it is, in fact, diverse, fragmented and often "at odds with prevailing systems", as you stated previously.

Yet you appear to align yourself with the "conservative" wing of your particular Church. That’s the monolithic, conservative wing of your Church. The wing which upholds orthodoxy above all. Rejects innovation or re-interpretation. The part of the overall Church which IS "the prevailing system"!

There is a gulf in credibility in what you argue Christianity is and the orthodoxy you actually represent. It’s a conundrum I like to call the "Have your religious cake and eat it" paradox. It’s a trait I see numerous Christians manifesting over and over.

[j]

Hi delilah,

No, I didnt mean to suggest it was a bubble, more that it was a distrust of trendiness.

I think you put your finger on it when you say, "This embarrassingly begs the very modern question of why a loving God would preside over a Creation where the good things are so inextricably entwined with cruelty and violence that has nothing to do with human actions: cancer, parisitic wasps, predatory cats, tsunamis?"

But it is the response I find unconvincing. If the lives of disabled children are to be regarded as some kind of spiritual carbon offset scheme- I am sinful but luckily there is this kid in Milton Keynes in permanent agony so its all OK- then I think that is ethically bankrupt.

I suppose I could just about believe in a god that was prepared to create endless hell on earth for the innocent as a trial/ punishment for the gentry but I most certainly would not worship him.

I do think the freewill/original sin thing only works for mans inhumanity to man. beyond that, it doesnt work at all- for me at any rate.

[Delilah]

J, I don't find that traditional Christianity puts me in a cosy bubble cut off from modern social issues. The last days of the Roman Empire in which those philosophies were developed were hardly a Bollywood romance.

Take the problem of suffering. Innocent suffering doesn't make sense unless you also believe, as Christ and the very early Christians did, that supernatural powers parisitise creation, creating suffering; and that humans are caught uniquely in this conflict because being both physical and spiritual they have the capacity, with grace, to become like Christ, both fully human and fully divine, or to fall into sin (which merely means failing to become Christlike) and contribute to the problem. The early church was firmly convinced of the existence of a ubiquitous intelligent being that perverted God's creation; and that the function of the sacraments and the sacramental life was to help Christians resist this power through becoming more Christlike. These philosophies were especially developed through monasticism, not empire building.

The idea that humans were directly responsible for the creation of evil was an innovation by St Augustine, and is not universally accepted by all Christians. Where did the Serpent in the Garden come from, if all evil came from Adam?

Now, look at the CofE. In response, perhaps, to some of the extremes of Augustine's ideas (which CofE inherited as part of the original "modernisation" by QE I), the CofE has gradually eliminated the idea of an active evil power from almost every area except the baptism service. This embarrassingly begs the very modern question of why a loving God would preside over a Creation where the good things are so inextricably entwined with cruelty and violence that has nothing to do with human actions: cancer, parisitic wasps, predatory cats, tsunamis?

Have a look at "Revelations of Divine Love" by the lovely Mother Julian of Norwich (1342-1416) or some of the very readable books by Bishop Timothy Ware explaining the beliefs of the early Christian church. You may find, as I did, that these make more sense, and are actually much more helpful in dealing with the real problems of modern life, than the ad-hoc improvised theology of TEC and TAC.

The traditional test for whether a new initiative or philosophy comes from the Holy Spirit or ... the other place .. is whether it acts to glorify Christ. I don't see that the latest developments in TEC or the CofE pass that test. Christ seems quite obscured in the scramble for "recognition" and "seperate provinces". Meanwhile, the sheep which the episcopy were supposed to have been sanctified to lead and protect are scattering and at risk of the "ravening wolf" that rages against the flock and the shepherds.

[David Cohen]

J Pearce

The reason why Easter is not a fixed date is because it follows the lunar cycle: it does so because it is a commemoration of the Passover, celebrated by Jesus before his arrest.

The idea that Jesus "hijacked" the date is really silly, even by your standards.

The traditional date for the Annunciation to Mary is 25 March. Nine months later, hey presto! The Nativity.

Whether or not the dates meet the accuracy of a modern atomic clock is beside the point. The fact is that Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus, with a very considerable panoply of traditions belonging solely to the Christian faith and mostly founded on the beginning of the Gospel according to St Luke.

[Malcolm+]

I suppose I should be grateful that Van hasn't tried to call me a Nazi again.

It's reading a bit too much into his last comment to take it as admonition that four men at arms should ride across to Canada and slaughter me while I pray.

Van, I pity you.

You seem to think that outrageous epithets constitute serious discussion. Perhaps it is precisely that shallow thinking that has led the Communion to its present crisis.

[Fr. Van Windsor]

Given that this thread is growing far afield of the original topic, "Give us new province, say orthodox," and into a sort of mental masturbation contest between three of us (feels good, but nothing good will grow from it), I think I'll move back to the original topic only for comments. Not that it hasn't been fun :)

That's not a promise...

My apologies if I've offended ;)

[Fr. Van Windsor]

JP says: "Its not good enough to play the 'martyr' card when defending Christianity - I can name any number of scenarios when its been Christians dealing out the persecution." And yet, these two opinions are not mutually exclusive, and in fact prove that Christianity is not monolithic. It also proves the danger of
assumptions and generalizations which create false, incomplete, biased, bigoted, uninformed, exaggerated, dangerous, world views and personal premises. The kinds of things you sound on about related to Christianity. It is funny, the religion you seem to hate has a phrase, uttered by Our Lord, that seems advice you might consider, "Or how will you say to your brother, Let me pull out the mote out of your eye; and, behold, a beam is in your own eye?"

"Good thing to - I cannot imagine a more profound Hell than living in a theocracy based solely on orthodox Christian teaching."
Uhhmmm, maybe, Islamic Fundamentalism, Islamic Secular (Saddam Hussein), totalitarian regimes, a secularist society that is based on the premise of only the fit will survive, etc, etc... Your point is not even a card in the game, only a diversion...

[Fr. Van Windsor]

Malcolm(-): dear, dear, me, "Will no one rid me of this troublesome cleric?"

[J Pearce]

Mr Cohen,

The point I make is nothing to do with "denying" that Christians perform ritual celebrations on particular calender dates. The point is, that Christianity has hijacked pre-existing celebrations from other cultures and adapted them to fit Christian ideology. Think of it as adding a new paint job to an old wall.

As for JC's birthday - apparently there's considerable debate as to whether Dec 25th is actually the correct date. If your vaunted "infallible" Christian ethos can't even get the birthday of its founding member correct, then it says rather a lot about how dodgy the rest of the foundations are!

BTW, there is a very good logical reason why Easter date isn't fixed - its because no one actually knows when the Death and Resurrection took place and no-one could agree on when it should be celebrated. Hence the fudge of tying it to lunar cycles! Rather smacks of a "will this do?" approach, really, doesn't it…

Delilah - congratulations for falling back on the age-old Christian excuse, which can be summarised thus: "its not Christianity wot did it, it woz bad people pretending to be Christian". It is the ultimate get-out clause and also, the ultimate hypocrisy, the ultimate lie. We don't accept this kind of excuse from, say, Nazi's - what exempts Christians from taking responsibility for what their ideology instructs them to do, pray tell?

[J Pearce]

Van the Man,

Its not good enough to play the "martyr" card when defending Christianity - I can name any number of scenarios when its been Christians dealing out the persecution. It continues to this day (the conservative Anglicans, e.g. Akinola, have no moral problem in persecuting gays, for example). Whilst I don't agree with the persecution of Christians that, say, is taking place in India right now, or in Muslim countries, it is a historical fact that Christian proselytising has destroyed indigenous cultures (regarded as "inferior" by Christian missionaries) and ironically enough, was the root cause of Islamic fundamentalism that we know and fear today.

In the end, Christianity is just another ideology that competes for acolytes, with its own set of beliefs, culture and self-justifying mythology (witness the Bible). Absolutely, it is monolithic, when judged in terms of its major (i.e. most popular) sects - Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism. Absolutely, it has been directly responsible for innumerable atrocities down the ages. These are incontravertable facts. Whether you like it or not, therefore, Christianity - and its followers - must be judged on that basis.

This is not to say that much good has come out of Christian endeavour, but only apparently when Christians turn away from orthodoxy to embrace influences that exist outside of it. Hence my argument that Christianity cannot and never will exist apart from wider culture and historical frame of reference. Good thing to - I cannot imagine a more profound Hell than living in a theocracy based solely on orthodox Christian teaching.

Assumption - is necessary in the confines of a blog. Otherwise, everyone who posts would be submitting theses to support their arguments. The medium demands the judicious use of brevity. at the expense of explicit argument.

[j]

Delilah, as you know it is not that I find anything laughable, it is that I cannot accept the problem of innocent suffering. That is my sole, but absolute, barrier to faith.

I find it interesting that faith requires a sense of isolation from social norms today, and I can see why you might want to do that, aiming for eternal truth over fashion and for genuine guidance.

I think though that there are very real issues faced by Christians, Jews and Muslims alike, which arise from following a faith that is laid out in ancient scriptures, that have come down to us over time with human editing and intervention. How far does one take things literally, and what does one do with the internal inconsistencies, are live issues for today as they have always been.

That's where I think the interest lies- not in dumbing down to go along with fashion, but in recognising how human history has damaged the voice that speaks, if you have faith, through the scriptures- both initially in how it had to be expressed at that time to be accepted and understood, and since in terms of errors in the text etc.

[Delilah]

J, yes, choosing Christ means rejecting much that the world accepts as common sense or justice. Believing on an unseen being for which there is no scientific proof is just the start. There's the Resurrection - you can't be Christian and not believe in the Resurrection. You can be a nice person and go to church, maybe even a vicar, but for what? Go and work in a soup kitchen instead, you'll do more good than propping up an institution that promotes magical thinking that you personally find laughable. Believing impossible things doesn't stop at the Resurrection - the church is founded on events like the Holy Spirit descending at Pentecost in tongues of flame, conferring the ability to perform miracles and healings. It isn't even about the Golden Rule either - Jesus did not say "do as you would be done by", he instructed his disciples to "LOVE one another AS I HAVE LOVED YOU". It's a much tougher call, especially when you review the Gospels to list what, exactly, Jesus did for love. He didn't campaign for justice and respect for his disciples or himself, anyway. Go and look up what Jesus said to his disciples when they were arguing about who would be most important in heaven. It has nothing to do with social or sexual justice; and contrasts unpleasantly with the ongoing catfight about "respect" and "fairness" in the CofE.

The rewards of Christianity are not to be found on earth - "build up your treasure in Heaven, for where your treasure is there also will your heart be".

Historically, the evils that J Pearce rattles on about have arisen not from magical thinking and passionate adherence to the Gospels but from creeping secularisation of the church; the comfortable acceptance of wordly norms and political concerns, and growing unwillingness to follow the really very clear teachings that to build the Kingdom of God you must look heavenwards, not earthwards, and to that end control your OWN (not others') normal human desires for security, respect, influence, the kindness of others, food, sex and even this earthly life.

[Fr. Van Windsor]

J Pearce: the generalization that I am referring to is that you suggest that Christianity is always reforming to fit social norms,cultures, and governments. Yet in fact, it often is at odds with prevailing systems, cultures, and secular thought. As a result, Christians are martyred, marginalized, ridiculed, and beaten for their beliefs---even today. Yes it is true that some Christians have been assimilated, as has their faith, by the world, the flesh, and the devil, but many others have not.
Your original attempt was to attack Christianity by suggesting that it was now monolithic and evil in some way,the driving force for bad things that have happened throughout history. I am suggesting that is not the case. Your most recent post, however, seems more reasonable as you talk about the adaptation and evolution of Christianity. I have no problem with that---but of course that is not where you were going in earlier posts.

Of course on abortion you are wrong---"dead" wrong. I am also opposed to the death penalty, and euthanasia.

You seem to "assume" a great deal, making sweeping generalizations about things and others. Remember that when you "assume" too much you make an "ass" of "u" and "me."

[David Cohen]

So, JPearce, there is no link between Christmas and the birth of Christ? No connection between Easter and the Passover / Resurrection?

Wikipedia is indeed simple, obvious stuff. But check out the historian you have cited. He belonged to the Novatians and as such is no more an impartial commentator than you are.

There is nothing unscriptural about celebrating the Nativity or the Resurrection. And in case you hadn't noticed, Easter takes place on a different day each year - it tracks the lunar cycles which fix the Passover celebrated by Jesus and therefore the Supper which he commanded the apostles to keep in remembrance of him.

Doh!

[Malcolm+]

"leaving aside your penchant for overblown, portentous and utterly redundant comparisons,"

But Mr.(?) Pearce. If we leave aside Van's penchant for overblown, portentous and utterly redundant comparisons, there's pretty much nothing left.

[J Pearce]

OK Fr VW, leaving aside your penchant for overblown, portentous and utterly redundant comparisons, lets address this idea you seem to have buzzing around in your head that Christianity is, somehow, entirely unchanged since its inception.

So where, for a small example, does the Bible talk about Easter? Or Christmas? Did the early Christians celebrate these festivals?

Certainly not Christmas. Because it was hijacked them from pre-existing Pagan festivals, right? Doh!

And even Easter is described thus by Wikipedia:

"The observance of any non-Jewish special holiday throughout the Christian year is believed by some to be an innovation postdating the Early Church. The ecclesiastical historian Socrates Scholasticus (b. 380) attributes the observance of Easter by the church to the perpetuation of local custom, "just as many other customs have been established," stating that neither Jesus nor his Apostles enjoined the keeping of this or any other festival."
[my emphasis]

My "generalisation" is fact. Christianity has existed for about two thousand years. Mankind has existed for much longer and had already formed numerous belief systems and ideolgies prior to the existence of Christianity. Therefore, by definition, there were pre-existing cultures with their own social and cultural norms.

Where these cultures absorbed Christian ideology, they were changed, but so was Christian ideology, to suit the pre-existing culture. It was adapted to the context it was being taught within. It was a symbiotic process.

This is simple, obvious stuff. But I understand, Fr VW, that’s it not the kind of thing you want to know about, because it rather blows away your narrow, arrogant and entirely spurious preconceptions about Christianity being the "one, true" religion of "God".

[Fr. Van Windsor]

J Pearce writes: "You wanna try convincing me of your moral high ground now, O Pious One?" I prefer to think of myself as self-righteous, but thanks for the complement. I do agree with your point talking about Christians using very unChristian, even Nazi-like tactics. However, taking you to task for a generalization like "Christianity adapts and always has adapted to prevailing social and cultural drivers..." is not mutually exclusive of my earlier point.

Malcolm: Another salient point. you are a caution...

[Malcolm+]

Speaking of "shrill little self," Van, you might try getting over yourself. You are the best evidence that the "conservative" movement is really just a gang of crybabies.

One would almost hope, Van, that you might meet some real Nazis some day, just so you can grasp how pathetic your self-indulgent whinging has become.

Do grow up.

[J Pearce]

Oh dear Fr VW, we are not particularly au fait with history, are we? If we are to believe you & Robroy, Christianity hasn't changed since its inception.

It must be ever so pleasant living in such a state of blissful ignorance.

BTW, I still see you're banging on about Nazi-style tactics (sample quote : "yes, I would say these are the very tactics the Nazis, the Leninists, the Maoists, other Communists, anarchists, all over the world, and every tin-horn dictator, have used to gain the power and control of their countries, or regions, that would enable them to kill millions of people in the name of a "higher good" that justified their actions and later let them kill, or support murder, with impunity")

Lets try it this way:

"yes, I would say these are the very tactics the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Puritans and Missionaries all over the world, and every tin-horn Bishop, have used to gain the power and control of their countries, or regions, that would enable them to kill millions of people in the name of a "higher good" that justified their actions and later let them kill, or support murder, with impunity"

Yeah, that works. Did for the Americas. Much of Europe during the Dark Ages as well.

You wanna try convincing me of your moral high ground now, O Pious One?

[Fr. Van Windsor]

"Christianity adapts and always has adapted to prevailing social and cultural drivers..." Ahhhh, J Pearce, that must be why there are martyrs and confessors to this very day. Apparently Christians fit prevailing social and cultural drivers so well. Yes, such statements as yours do tend to make me "petulant." Thanks for the chuckle.

[Fr. Van Windsor]

Malcolm: So far you have not made one point that you have been able to sustain related to this particular thread. By making the word "Nazi" your final assault in order to save yourself the embarrassment of faulty logic and twisted truth throughout, you have only pointed it out more so, painfully. Your embracing of this last straw is a Red Herring, and you know it, if you don't everyone else most certainly does.

As to your obsession with my use of the phrase, "using Nazi tactics," well, get over your little shrill self. The fact is, when you try someone in a trial, without them present, without having made the charges known, for what that person may or may not be thinking or doing, without benefit of a defence, against your own rules of order, without giving the one "charged," time to form a response, in a court that has already made up its mind, not just to cost that someone their "job," ---as you so eloquently state it--- but also their sacred honor, their family's security, a depth of pain to those in their diocese who love, respect, and look to that person as their spiritual leader, ---and you are willing to bring the entire Church to the brink of split ---all for the point of gaining filthy lucre and to grasp property---yes, I would say these are the very tactics the Nazis, the Leninists, the Maoists, other Communists, anarchists, all over the world, and every tin-horn dictator, have used to gain the power and control of their countries, or regions, that would enable them to kill millions of people in the name of a "higher good" that justified their actions and later let them kill, or support murder, with impunity--- just as TEC leadership supports abortion --- talk about your millions of deaths. That is why these NAZI LIKE tatics must be stopped before they become the norm. There are parts of the world where the Church's leaders could in fact use these same tactics to bring about death (i.e., the marginalization and murder of homosexuals) and perhaps have... Power does corrupt, as they say, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Call a spade a spade, if we don't that spade may come back to bury us.

[J Pearce]

Fr. Van Windsor (Father? Really?! A bit petulant for a man of the frock, aren't you?),

Christians are really in no position to go hurling Nazi comparisons around. Especially bearing in mind how compromised the RCC is, given its craven capitulation to Nazism and its mutually beneficial arrangement over the Jews.

Lets not forget various Christian-inspired bloody crusades down the centuries as well.

And abortion is not mass murder. A foetus is not a sentient human being for a considerable period inside the womb, although I grant you that there is no defintive scientific "point" when a foetus "becomes" a human being. There are, absolutely, situations where abortion is the best - or perhaps, least worse - option for a woman to take.

Such crass anti-abortion fundamentalism, coming as it does from an institution mired in blood and hypocrisy anyway, merely reinforces the increasingly popular stereotype that Christians are just another bunch of zealots who are out to destroy hard won freedoms, in much the same way as fundamentalist Islam purports to.

Robroy - I have heard this piffle before about Christianity standing apart from the culture it exists within. Live in the real world - Christianty adapts and always has adapted to prevailing social and cultural drivers. Its only Luddites like you who choose to ignore this. The reason, I suspect, is because this immutable fact rather destroys your highly stylised little worldview.

[j]

"It will be an interesting experiment to see how the church develops now that it is founded on sexual justice rather than any coherent theology."

How interesting Delilah that you think they are mutually exclusive.

[Malcolm+]

I've been honoured many times in my life, in many different ways.

Only rarely have I been honoured with the contempt of someone who thinks that random accusations of fascism constitute intelligent argument.

Of course, few people are so incapable of rational discussion as to be so dependent on such outrageous ad hominem.

It is remarkable, though, that you can't see a moral difference between some guy losing his job and the oppression, imprisonment, assault and slaughter of some 12 million people.

[Fr. Van Windsor]

Malcolm: Then I would guess a person like you is "honored" by many...

[Malcolm+]

(Note to Ruth - this may be a duplication. If so, feel free to erase.)

The "debate" so far.

Van: You're a Nazi.

Malcolm: The word "Nazi" is not appropriate here.

Van: You're a Nazi.

Malcolm: There is a world of difference between one man losing his job and the mass murder of millions.

Van: You're a Nazi.

Malcolm: It is viscious and wicked to misuse the epithet "Nazi" in this way.

Van: Stop the namecalling.

Frankly, I find it remarkable that any person would try to claim a moral equivalence between one man temporarily losing his job and the genocidal slaughter of 11-12 million people.

The fact that someone so ethically, morally and spiritually crippled would not respect me is a badge of honour.

[Fr. Van Windsor]

"England has for centuries been one of the most socially liberal nations in the world, and liberal attitudes and urbanity have always characterised the C of E." What a sense of humor you have Fr. Mark...

[robroy]

I have heard this piffle before from Mark: England is filled with liberals, homosexuality abounds, etc., therefore the church should reflect this culture. I recently went to a concert by children from India. They all came from one tribe in the North. A little over a century ago, they were headhunters but 100% of them were converted to Christianity by the work of one Welsh missionary. I am glad this faithful Welshman didn't follows Mark silly notion that Christianity should conform to culture rather than vice-versa. (See http://tinyurl.com/4oso9c for their wonderful story. How far has the Church of Wales fallen.)

If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.

We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us.

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. It teaches us to say "No" to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,

[Delilah]

Joanne Nilson echoes my sentiments entirely. A cradle Anglican/Episcoplian, I am leading my children out of it to a church which retains the faith, tradition and indeed reason which seem to have taken leave of TEC and TAC. St Paul's letters to the Corinthians could have been written to the bishops of the Episcopal and Anglican churches. It will be an interesting experiment to see how the church develops now that it is founded on sexual justice rather than any coherent theology.

[Fr Mark]

Joann Stewart Nilson: "Do you not remember the original charge of The Church of England to spread the faith throughout the world?" I am afraid I don't think that was ever the case, actually. The Church of England's original charge was rather to be the Church of the nation of England. England has for centuries been one of the most socially liberal nations in the world, and liberal attitudes and urbanity have always characterised the C of E. Given that England today is one of the world's most liberal countries when it comes to gender, race and sexual orientation issues, it is not remotely surprising that a church which claims to represent the nation at prayer should need to engage honestly and pastorally with its constituent members, who include large numbers of coupled gay people.

[Fr. Van Windsor]

Now Malcolm, I suppose, had I any respect for your opinions, or their veracity, I would be offended. corresponding with you I am reminded a little of my 7 year old son arguing with my 11 year old, after the older child has called him a name, he always responds, "I know you are but what am I..." But, of course my 7 year old has a better grasp of this situation then you seem to have...

[Fr. Van Windsor]

Dear Joann Stewart Nilson:

My mother's family, were members of The Disciples of Christ, in fact were present at Cane Ridge. They were in Kentucky in the 17oo's, so they were there as the "Great Revival" started in the early 1800's. I have several autographs and letters from the period. One item is an autograph book with Alexander Campbell's signature gotten by my great, great, Grandfather when he attended Bethany College, when it was still in Va..

Most of my family attended Transylvania University (another Disciple's school), as did I, in Lexington, Ky.. My Father's family, like mother's, were in this Country in the early 16oo's but have always been Anglican and later Episcopalian.

My mother converted to the Episcopal Church 55 years ago, and loves it to this day. I do too, and I happen to be a priest. But I hate what is taking place. Yet, I hold on because I know that the World, the Flesh, and the Devil will never prevail againt the Church. I would think that in Pittsburgh, and the area of that diocese, there would be Traditional Episcopal Churches. I noticed that The Diocese of Pittsburgh is keeping the word "Episcopal" in their name. So it would be an easy thing to call yourself an Episcopalian, and when people ask tell them you are traditional.

Having grown up in Point Pleasant, W.Va., I can tell you that W.Va. has some very conservative Episcopalian Churches. And I certainly wouldn't consider Dr. Stanley's opinion as the "be all to cure all."

Eventually there will probably be a Traditional Anglican Province in this country that willbe in communion with Canterbury.

God bless you as you keep the faith. I shall pray for you and your son. If you would like to talk please feel free to email me. Go to the Church website which lists our adress: www.trinitychurchpb.org

[Malcolm+]

1. No one questions that inhibition will NORMALLY precede deposition. The issue is whether or not inhibition MUST precede depostion. And all you really have is shouting.

2. The numbers you have produced yourself indicate that the vote was closer this time. While perhaps not hugely so, it is nonetheless closer. "Essentially the same" isn't quite true. It's not like we're talking about a poll with a margin of error.

3. Most recent reports suggest that most of the largest parishes have chosen to remain as part of the Episcopal Church. FWIW.

[Joann Stewart Nilson, Bethany, WV]

Ladies and Gentlemen:

My silly American heart weeps for our faith and church. My grandfather Stewart, from New Castle - UK, began my cradle-faith journey from The Church of Our Saviour in Glenshaw, Pennsylvania; a part of the Pittsburgh diocese, with Bishop Appleyard in the 1970's during TEC's last "reformation." I have traversed America on my own pilgrimage as an adult to return to Pittsburgh from Los Angeles, Texas (where I was a DRE for the diocese) to New Orleans, Chicago, the border of Mexico in the diocese of South Texas (before and during Lillibridge)to North Carolina. While in North Carolina I also uncontrollably and spontaneously wept at a Powerpoint presentation of TEC's Canon Craig's where he denounced "born again" believers in the Episcopal tradition as ignorant idiots. I then moved to Raleigh where I saw my priest deposed and our entire congregation join AMiA. I then moved temporarily this last summer to Pittsburgh while awaiting my Assistant Professorship appointment at Bethany College where the Disciples of Christ movement was begun by Alexander Campbell in West Virginia over 150 years ago.

I have met Bishop Scriven and know him to be a man of integrity but also one who plans to return to the UK in December to be near his grandchildren. I heard Dr. Charles Stanley on television this morning refer to us (TEC) as the ëntire denomination separating from Christianity by allowing immoral practices. I instantly and uncontrollably cried yet again. I am, once again, seeking out a new orthodox church home here in West Virginia within 50 miles of Pittsburgh. Please tell me where I should go and just what to say to my colleagues, students, administrators and public when asked what denomination I am? No one here understands the term Anglicanism any longer although it does seem a stop gap panacea during conversations. I do not know who I am and where I can find an orthodox Anglican Church tied, in good standing, with the Church of England. Our uniquely "Ämerican" problem will most assuredly infect the UK directly. How does this surprise you? I was in Boston a couple of years ago and went to the Old North Church to get a bell at the gift shop for my 12 year-old son because he had just been studying it in his school in Texas. It still displays TEC's emblem. He was confirmed this past spring before we left TEC to join AMiA as a congregation in Raleigh. His faith journey is essentially over at 14 years-old because he no longer has an identity in a denomination consistent with the church he grew up in, consistent with his orthodox beliefs and strong enough to keep him engaged and anxious to attend on Sundays. What exactly should I say to my son who values his family heritage and the Royal Stewart Coat of Arms hanging in my office regarding sexuality let alone homosexuality as he has closely witnessed these events first hand through our actively, regular involvement in church since I was a DRE? Do you not remember the original charge of The Church of England to spread the faith throughout the world? Is this just a nice sentiment or has everyone forgotten what the impact these pontifications will have on parishoners and people long faithful, like myself, for generations spanning hundreds of years? I, for one, will not be making any new attempts at solace in The Church of England when I come to teach there this coming year. You will most assuredly be in the same sinking ship as America is now in. The water is getting colder by the second so be sure to dress warmly.

[robroy]

Touche, Father Van. Bennison INHIBITED then deposed. But alas, inhibition has been declared optional by Schori fiat and ecclesiastical abdication by 2/3rds of the bishops.

But it looks like the "deposition" has backfired wonderfully. The lone dissenter of the diocese of Pittsburgh standing committee, Rev Jim Simons had thought the vote would be much closer than last year's, perhaps even being defeated. It turns out that the vote was essentially the same:

Last year:
Lay vote: 118 (67%) - 58 (33%)
Clergy vote: 109 (82%) - 24 (18%)

Today:
Lay vote: 119 (62%) - 69 (35%)
Clergy voted: 119 (75%) - 33 (20%)

Pretty similar. A 2 to 1 margin in the laity and 3.75 to 1 in the clergy. Thank you, Ms Schori!

[Malcolm+]

Fr. Van, the fact that you can't bring yourself to admit that Nazi analogies are overblown and hysterical makes it very difficult to take anything you say at all seriously.

RobRoy, there was nothing about ambiguity in Bishop Whalon's piece. Indeed, he takes the line that the case against Bishop Duncan is utterly unambiguous.

But then, one is accustomed to you distorting things you've read. Were I as hysterical as some, I'd probably compare it to Goebbals.

[Fr. Van Windsor]

ROBROY: In an earlier post I mentioned that Whelon abstained, but it needed to be re-emphasized.

I would also point out that Bishop Bennison has been inhibited, tried, and now deposed. How's that for precedent?

[robroy]

Reading Bp Whalen's piece is painful as he tries to find ambiguity where there is none (the inhibited bishop this...the inhibited bishop that...). Bp Sinclair of Birkenhead calls the actions of the Americans an "example of profound self deception."

Now, Bp Whalen and others are not fools. (And for the record, Father Van, he abstained.) However, the "deposition", just before the diocesan convention is utter folly. Father Dan Martins writes, "I am also sad and angry—well, mystified might be a more accurate term—at the tunnel vision of the HOB majority. It is actually doing harm to their own cause." I don't think that Ms Schori can help doing what she does, but my question is why Bp Whalen and others would be a part of this folly. There certainly were plenty of bishops, who are no friends of the orthodox, but who voted against the foolishness (e.g., Bp Lee of Virginia).

Like Father Dan, I am mystified - not unhappy - but definitely mystified at their shooting themselves in the foot.

[Fr. Van Windsor]

As Bishop Whelon suggested I went to his website link, there the Bishop suggested that Bishop Duncan is still a bishop by virtue of his ordination, however he is not able to function as a bishop, priest, or deacon, in TEC. He is correct about that. But he is ONLY able to function as a bishop because of the graciousness of The Primate of the Southern Cone.

In the past the purpose of deposition was in effect to "defrock" someone, though a deposition can be lifted. Until recently all bishops in the Anglican Communion would have respected the deposition, and the clergy person would not be able to function -- it was an ultimate punishment. Now, however, other bishops and primates are ignoring this type of bullying by the USA House of Bishops, and our PB. So this is the ONLY reason Bishop Duncan,and a growing myriad of others who are leaving TEC have an Anglican place to go. The realignment is already taking place, it is not something of the future, it is here and now. Nowhere on Bishop Whelon's site, at least the one that he directed us to, did I see any reference to how he might have voted on the deposition, but I could have missed it...

Nothing that I have seen, makes me change my opinion of the act of deposing Bishop Duncan. Had he left the Church first, then fine, depose him, if you must. But you know, and I know, that Bishop Duncan was not deposed because he abandoned the Communion of this Church, but because of the money and buildings, filthy lucre.

Note to Malcolm: I said Nazi like tactics, "gestapo" is what I should heave said in this instance. My apologies. I remind you, however, that TEC supports abortion, even partial birth abortions, which have killed millions and millions of unborn children, even those who could live outside of the womb. I think that is when I should refer to TEC leadership as Nazi like. Thanks for helping me clarify.

[St. James]

The list of websites that I mentioned in my second comment yesterday was very hard to read; here is the list again, expanded. This new list includes sites that are informative about issues beyond the scope of religion, especially academic, social and equality.http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/uploads/rcp.htmlhttp://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=60752http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_laws_of_the_worldhttp://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/index.htmlhttp://family.jrank.org/pages/1553/Sexual-Orientation-Sexual-Orientation-Social-Policy.htmlhttp://www.law.ucla.edu/Williamsinstitute/reading/resources.htmlhttp://www.people.ku.edu/~jyounger/lgbtqprogs.htmlhttp://www.communities.gov.uk/archived/general-content/communities/sexualorientationlegislation/http://www.petertatchell.net/http://www.gayagenda.com/

[Malcolm+]

I find it interesting that, for some of the "conservatives," the "clear meaning" of any written thing is precisely what they want it to mean and none other. Rather like Humpty-Dumpty.

But at least RobRoy and Dr, Marsh haven't tried to compare one guy losing is job to the mass murder of millions.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

Bishop Keith Sinclair sums up the situation very clearly:

"I was privileged to meet +Bob at the Lambeth Conference and I can’t understand why those also present have now acted against him in this way. To have split the Communion by ignoring all the pleas not to innovate against the clearly expressed mind of the Communion and then to pretend that it is +Bob who has in some way departed form the faith is an example of profound self deception. To have proceeded in this way seems to myself, who first met TEC Bishops at Lambeth, that for all the fine words, a deeper force is driving this which is immune to the calls for unity and truth. TEC asked for diversity to be respected. Where is even elementary respect for the diversity of gospel orthodoxy represented by +Bob and the diocese of Pittsburgh? If the diocese was still undecided as to how to proceed in relation to TEC, this action would surely move them to leave. TEC may want to uphold its own distorted sense of its own polity. It should not now be surprised if the rest of the Anglican Communion now moves to assert its polity, without TEC."

http://support-duncan.blogspot.com/

[Dr Alan Marsh]

There are no ambiguities any longer in any of TEC's canons. The only authority is the Presiding Bishop, who has amply demonstrated that she can do what she likes.

Woe betide any mere bishop who dares express a contrary opinion!

[David Cohen]

SJ

Simply giving something a new name or label does not make it new.

The literature of the period 1000BC to 200AD knew all about certain "behaviours" and men who prefer to copulate with men.

The terms invented by 19th and 20th century psychologists (much of whose work was as primitive as other branches of medicine at the time) do not alter in any way the Judaeo-Christian understanding that sex outside marriage, including homosexual practice, is sinful.

[robroy]

Such hypocrisy. How about we stop the farce? The approval for inhibition was not even sought from the three senior bishops in the inhibition of Bp Cox.

Yes, Bp Duncan's INTENTIONS have been clear: He has stated that there is nothing in the TEC constitution and canons (C&C) that say a diocese can't secede and that if the diocese does vote to realign, he will follow his diocese's decision.

Go ahead read Bp Whalon's strained explanation of why they state there is "ambiguity" in the C&C. But also read Bp Lawrence's essay (http://tinyurl.com/5xal8d) on how the bishops, by their ignoring clear meaning, have granted Ms Schori near unchecked power. In particular, Bp Lawrence writes what should be obvious to all Christians:

"Having served in the Diocese of Pittsburgh and the Diocese of San Joaquin for almost all of my ordained ministry, I can tell you that the pastoral and theological matters that have precipitated the actions of their conventions will not be resolved by depositions or litigation, especially when the principles of due process and rule of law seem to be high-handedly ignored."

[+Pierre Whalon]

As my name seems to be popping up, I would like to assert three things: there are some ambiguities in Canon IV.9 which lend to different interpretations; the words and actions of Bishop Duncan are however absolutely unambiguous, and any other province would have disciplined him much more quickly; and there is a distinct difference of meaning of the word "deposition" in TEC as opposed to other provinces. See my own blog (hi Ruth!) at http://tinyurl.com/42ean4

(rg writes: thanks for dropping by, it is greatly appreciated!)

[St. James]

The term "homosexuals" appears in some recently published translations of the bible, but notin older translations, since there was no awareness that there was anyone who belonged to any other group than the majority group, heterosexuals (although that term was unknown as well). The ancients certainly were aware of all the kinds of sexual activity that we know of today. People who had same-sex experience were percieved as heterosexuals behaving badly or sinfully. During the late 19th century psychiatrists and others became aware that all individuals  had a sexual orientation and that some persons differed fron the main population.  The term "sexual orientation" in current use refers not to sexual activity of any kind, but to an innate psychological state or attribute designating the focus of one's sexual desire.Basically there are two:1. Heterosuxuality, indicating attraction to the opposite sex (90%to 95% of the population.)2. Homosexuality, indicating attraction to the same sex (and in this context including bisexuality, asexuality or any other periphereral type) encompassing the remainder of the population.In discussing sexual orientation itshould be remembered that everyone has an orientation, and that it is an innate and naturally occurring state that is unchosen and, as far as sience knows, cannot be changed.Whatever orientation is yours, it is yours for life and cannot be changed by prayer, fasting repentence, counselling, or anythingelse. Attempts to change sexual orientation are  unethical or evenharmful psychologically.Claims of successful change are unsubstantiated.There is no connection whatever ofhomosexuality with unusual or illegal sexual activity, such aspedoplilia, rape, bestiality, incest, or any other such, than there is with heterosexuality.One must be careful to distinguishbetween orientation and activity inorder to be clear in meaning.Some informative sites for information are:http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/uploads/rcp.htmlhttp://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=60752http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_laws_of_the_worldhttp://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/index.htmlhttp://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/sexual_prejudice.htmlhttp://www.law.ucla.edu/Williamsinstitute/reading/resources.htmlhttp://family.jrank.org/pages/1553/Sexual-Orientation-Sexual-Orientation-Social-Policy.htmlhttp://www.soulforce.org/index.phpThese sites provide various sorts ofinformation on sexualityI was unable to post these as links,but i'll aim for links in the future.

[St. James]

The ancient world certainly knew about sexual activity in many contexts, but never identified "sexual orientation" in the modern sense of a defined personal characteristic of each person indentifying where that person's sexual desires were focused, that is to say heterosexuality (90% to 95% of the population) or homoseuxality (including bisexuality and asexuality in this context). Sexual orientation is a naturally occurring psychological attribute (the sources of which are not understood completely) but persists throughout one's lifetime and cannot be changed, claims to the contarary notwithstanding. One's sexual orientation is a characteristic that is morally neutral. It is NOT in itself sexual activity. Sexual activity is chosen behavior, which can be moral or not, legal or not, reprehensible or not. The distinction between orientation and activity is very real and should be carefully observed in order to convey meanings clearly.Such behaviors as pedophilia,  bestiality, adultery, or "sex with a doorknob" (as a commenter posted elsewhere) are not applicable to homosexuals any more than to heterosexuals.

[Malcolm+]

No one disputes that the three senior bishops did not agree to Duncan's inhibition. The issue is whether one must be inhibited before any other action is taken. There is no jurisprudence to make that argument. There is an argument. There is nothing definitive.

Ecuador is not a Red Herring. The case involved the deposition of a bishop. The deposition was accomplished by a majority of bishops present and voting. Using the fanciful new test of the majority of bishops entitled to vote in the House, the deposition of that bishop was therefore uncanonical. Yet that deposition has stood unquestioned. There is your definitive precedent.

There are people at both ends of the spectrum who have found the present circumstance difficult. I'm not sure at what point Jesus promised that Church life would be free of difficulty.

The difference between Bishop Howe (and others) on the one hand and Bishop Duncan (and others) on the other is that the former group have not violated canons.

Thus, it is for the violation of canons that they have faced discipline, not for their views on the issue.

Now, on matters of principle, one may certainly make the choice to defy the law. That can be a highly principled position.

However, to be truly principled, such a decision must include the acceptance of the consequences of that choice. Assorted practitioners of non-violent civil disobedience have always been prepared to accept the legal consequences of their acts. That is what makes their disobedience principled.

The current "conservative" case is that they should be able to violate all the canons they want and no one must say them nay.

That isn't civil disobedience. That is arrogance and lawlessness.

We certainly can speak to why Bishop Whalon did not vote because he has given a very full explanation of his choice.

Finally, you clearly haven't got the foggiest notion what a Nazi is if you think the epithet applies here. To compare the disadvantages applied to Bob Duncan with the persecution and mass murder of millions of Jews, Gypsies, political dissenters, persons with mental disorders and, yes, homosexuals, is simply evil.